Scandimanium, Titanium, Alimanium....

J

JERRYS.

New member
what's next with all these light weight materials for the J frame revolvers.... I recently picked up a S&W 342-1, and this thing is lighter than my LCR .22lr and about the same as my LWS32. I didn't think there would be an appreciable difference in "feel" in the pocket between it and my 642, but there was.

anyone care to share their thoughts on this topic?
 
Lighter isn’t necessarily better, in my opinion.

I feel it’s more important on how a gun handles for primary and followup shots. Next, it has to be controllable. Therefore my choice is a S&W 640 357 Magnum 5 Shot which is 24 Oz.

I have shot up to 250 rounds of 357 Magnum with it in one range session. No pain. Great control.

I had a 442 but I prefer 357 Magnum.

I wouldn’t shoot a 357 Magnum in a gun weighing less. 23 ounces is my ideal set point.

I have tried lighter guns, and they’re not pleasant. Most I have done in a session is a little under 100 rounds. Not fun.

Mind you I shoot 50 rounds of 44 Magnum or 454 Casull or 30-35 rounds of 500 S&W without issues.

To me, it’s a certain balance of weight that makes a gun good for proficiency, control and accuracy.

With the right choice in a holster, a loaded J frame is not even noticeable.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro
 
Scandium is very expensive relatively speaking but is used with aluminum in alloys.
Titanium, which 30-40 years ago was going to replace a lot of machined metals. It isn’t relatively expensive but is very difficult to machine and takes $$$$ to setup a machining shop.
 
To me, my 9mm Airweight is good enough. I did consider picking up a Titanium cylinder, as you lose the weight of the rounds with the lighter cylinder... but costs were too much for little benefit.

Just put it in the safe for the winter, as I put the Glock 30S back in rotation. Had the original TLR-7 turning on in the holster when I bend over... but problem went away with the new TLR-7A (high button option fits in a few holster options for the original light). While the Glock is larger/heavier, it isn’t as hard for me to conceal in the winter.

But carrying the 642 is a dream...
 
For me, 12 oz. Airweight 9mm titanium cylindered 637-2 is about right; a good compromise.
Titanium cylinder reduces weight by about 15%. Noticible and worth it to me.
 
Last edited:
Lighter isn’t necessarily better, in my opinion.

I feel it’s more important on how a gun handles for primary and followup shots. Next, it has to be controllable. Therefore my choice is a S&W 640 357 Magnum 5 Shot which is 24 Oz.
Click to expand...
I agree with this. Even with +P 38 Specials I prefer my SS frame 649 over my alloy frame 642.

I don't have any problems pocket carrying a 22oz J-frame every day.
 
I have owned, shot, and often carried a S&W 340PD since they came out. Scandium with a Ti cylinder. It is an extremely light gun so it carries in a front pocket holster in the lightest of wool pants. Don't let anybody tell you that an ounce or two less does not make a big difference, and when you compare it to a steel 640, it is night and day.
I am not the least bit recoil sensitive so a couple of boxes of 38sp. per outing is no big deal. I seldom shoot .357 as in that short barrel their advantage is lost.
If you get one with a TI cylinder, take care in your choice of cleaning materials as ammonia based products can be damaging to the finish and also pay attention to the bullet wt. requirements due to potential flame cutting of the frame.
These little beauties are great for certain carries in certain places. I do not look at this as a range gun, only one to train with on a regular basis.
340pd.jpg
 
TXAZ said:
Scandium is very expensive relatively speaking but is used with aluminum in alloys.
Click to expand...
^^^^ This.

Smith & Wesson's marketing department really knocked it out of the park with their "Scandium" guns. Many people believe that these guns are made almost completely out of Scandium, which is so expensive that it's right up there with Unobtanium in cost. The truth is, S&W's "Scandium" guns are aluminum alloy. The particular alloy has a VERY small amount of Scandium in it, but it's a VERY small amount, hardly more than a trace.
 
my gun has no such ammo restrictions, the cylinder finish will get worn because that's just what happens to working guns, flame cutting is not a .38 spl concern, and .357 mag offers more than .38 spl in every category, good or bad.
 
Aguila Blanca said:
^^^^ This.

Smith & Wesson's marketing department really knocked it out of the park with their "Scandium" guns. Many people believe that these guns are made almost completely out of Scandium, which is so expensive that it's right up there with Unobtanium in cost. The truth is, S&W's "Scandium" guns are aluminum alloy. The particular alloy has a VERY small amount of Scandium in it, but it's a VERY small amount, hardly more than a trace.
Click to expand...

I don't think S&W ever claimed the guns were made almost completely out of Scandium. From my memory S&W had always been clear that only trace amounts of scandium were required to make it as strong as steel. And gunwriters of the time also said so in their articles.
 
I finally gave up my Airweight. Carrying it was nice but darn it, I couldn't shoot and hit a barn from the inside with it and it kicked like a mule.
 
[QUOTE-74A95]I don't think S&W ever claimed the guns were made almost completely out of Scandium. From my memory S&W had always been clear that only trace amounts of scandium were required to make it as strong as steel.[/QUOTE]
I didn't say they claimed the guns were made entirely (or nearly so) of Scandium. But they did their best to create that impression. Let's face it -- they call the guns "Scandium." What else is that supposed to convey?

An aluminum alloy often used in firearms is 7075, which contains copper, manganese, chromium, and zinc. So if the Big Blaster Revolver Company uses that alloy for their frames, the equivalent would be for them to call their guns "Manganese" or "Chromium."

Call it what you want -- S&W's "Scandium" is an aluminum alloy with trace amounts of scandium.
 
My experience with the Airlite has been very good.


I carry a Jframe Airlite 331. 32 H&R magnum. It fires my handcast 93 RN at 1100 fps. Very impressive velocity for a snubbie. Good accuracy.

I bought a second 331 and a 332 for my two sisters.

With light loads these guns are very pleasant to shoot - woth hot loads they make a good CCW piece.

I also added Crimsom Trace grips to mine. Very easy to hold a 6 inch group offhand at 30 feet.

It still works perfectly after a dozen or so yearsof carry - although the finish is quite worn...
 
74A95 said:
I don't think S&W ever claimed the guns were made almost completely out of Scandium. From my memory S&W had always been clear that only trace amounts of scandium were required to make it as strong as steel. And gunwriters of the time also said so in their articles.
Click to expand...
Lots of manufacturers say their 'gadget' is 'scandium' but all are small amounts of scandium in aluminum..Pure scandium is $100,000+ per KG..
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top